http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1002240

A meta-analysis paper looking at the association of published and random gene

sets with Breast Cancer (outcome). They find that you can choose a

random set of genes and find--in cases where there are > 100 genes

involved--that 90% of those sets are "associated" with Breast Cancer outcome.

This is another very interesting paper related to how we do our statistical

analyses. It's essentially the problem of correlation != causation.

And moreso, that (from the paper):

"

the question is not whether a given set of genes is related to survival, but

whether it is more related to survival than random sets of genes

"

Because of this problem they find that their random gene sets and those with

un-related processes--including "postprandial laughter", are associated with

breast cancer outcome. And, 28 of 47 published studies had association that

was not stronger than expected by chance.

Only 18 of those 47 were more significant than all but 5% of the random

signatures (p < 0.05).

This problem should be somewhat specific to Cancer because it causes [sic]

A meta-analysis paper looking at the association of published and random gene

sets with Breast Cancer (outcome). They find that you can choose a

random set of genes and find--in cases where there are > 100 genes

involved--that 90% of those sets are "associated" with Breast Cancer outcome.

This is another very interesting paper related to how we do our statistical

analyses. It's essentially the problem of correlation != causation.

And moreso, that (from the paper):

"

the question is not whether a given set of genes is related to survival, but

whether it is more related to survival than random sets of genes

"

Because of this problem they find that their random gene sets and those with

un-related processes--including "postprandial laughter", are associated with

breast cancer outcome. And, 28 of 47 published studies had association that

was not stronger than expected by chance.

Only 18 of those 47 were more significant than all but 5% of the random

signatures (p < 0.05).

This problem should be somewhat specific to Cancer because it causes [sic]

**crazy expression changes in lots of genes.**